The Eleventh Amendment is the first Amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights. Congress passed the Eleventh Amendment, and the states ratified it on February 7, 1795, though it did not take effect until 1798. The amendment states that “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” It was enacted to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1793 decision in Chisholm v. Georgia. I think it is worth studying because, although it was later overturned by amendment and clearly stepped beyond the intentions of those ratifying the Constitution, those involved were attempting to delineate a proper relationship between the Federal and State governments and to ensure the payment of war debts. It illustrates three important realities: (i) well-meaning people can misunderstand the public’s willingness to accept innovations, (ii) a tradition (in this case American and English law) does not speak with one voice, (iii) the amendment process is part of judicial correction when errors are made.

The Issue

One of the most significant issues arising from the Constitution’s adoption concerned the proper balance of power between the national government and the states. Federalists desired a strong central government that would unify the states into a single nation. Anti-Federalists feared and opposed a federal government that could threaten their status as independent, sovereign political entities. We continue to struggle to find a workable and effective solution to the delicate problem of implementing our system of divided sovereignty between the states and the federal government.

This concern as regards judicial power was reflected in Article III of the Constitution. Article III covers lawsuits between states, between a state and citizens of another state, and between a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. During ratification debates, three states suggested placing explicit limits on suits against states, but these proposals were unsuccessful. As was often the case when agreement could not be reached, the document was vague regarding the full scope of the federal judiciary’s powers.

Those who opposed allowing states to be sued in federal court had several concerns. Most importantly, the states had accumulated substantial debt during the Revolutionary War. Although many of these debts had been assumed by the federal government under Alexander Hamilton’s economic plan of 1790, state officials still had to cope with the possibility of being overwhelmed with financial claims by citizens of other states. They also feared being taken into federal court by frequent challenges to state land grants. A less concrete but equally important worry was based on the idea of state sovereignty. If states could be sued in federal court, many believed they would lose their sovereignty and independence as political units and become entirely subject to the federal government. These concerns all came to a head when the Supreme Court decided Chisholm v. Georgia. 

Legal Debates Before Chisholm

Generally speaking, what we call “sovereign immunity” prevents lawsuits against a government without its permission. As early as Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, it was the law in England that “no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him.”

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not debate or address the issue of state sovereign immunity. However, Article III described the judicial power in language suggesting that states would be subject to suits by individuals in federal courts under certain conditions. This issue became a point of contention during the ratification debates. Anti-Federalist George Mason of Virginia asked, “Is the sovereignty of the State to be arraigned like a culprit, or private offender? Will the States undergo this mortification?” Patrick Henry argued that if states could be sued for debts, holders of the “immense quantity of depreciated Continental paper money in circulation at the conclusion of the war” would be able to demand repayment of the face value of these notes “shilling for shilling.”

Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, and James Madison, tried to ease concerns by claiming that states would not be forced to act as defendants in federal courts, regardless of what Article III states. Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 81, “It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent.” During Virginia’s ratification debates, Madison argued that states would need to sue in federal court to bring a claim against a citizen of another state but that they would have immunity unless “a state shall condescend to be a party.” Marshall agreed, saying, “It is not rational to suppose that the sovereign power shall be dragged before a Court. The intent is to enable States to recover claims of individuals resident in other States.” Patrick Henry ridiculed these claims, once again pointing to Article III’s language about suits involving states “without discriminating between plaintiff and defendant.”

This brings us to Chishom v. Georgia and an early example of judicial overreach that failed.

The Facts and Runup to Chisholm

Chisholm v. Georgia originated from actions taken during the early years of the Revolutionary War. [1] In 1777, American troops stationed in Georgia needed supplies. Commissioners, authorized to act on behalf of the Georgia government, purchased the necessary items from Robert Farquhar, a South Carolina merchant. Although the commissioners had funds from the state treasury to pay Farquhar, they did not do so. Farquhar died in 1784 with the debt remaining unpaid. His executor, Alexander Chisholm, petitioned the Georgia legislature for payment, but the petition was denied in 1789.

Following this denial, Chisholm filed a lawsuit against the state in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia. Georgia argued that the state had sovereign immunity and could not be compelled to appear as a defendant. The case was heard by Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, riding circuit, and U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Pendleton, both of whom agreed that the court lacked jurisdiction. In 1792, Chisholm brought a suit in the Supreme Court of the United States, where Georgia again claimed sovereign immunity.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

After the case was heard, the Supreme Court held that Georgia did not have sovereign immunity and could be sued by individual plaintiffs in federal court. Each justice wrote a separate opinion, with Chief Justice John Jay and Justices John Blair, Jr., James Wilson, and William Cushing in the majority, and Justice James Iredell dissenting. Chief Justice Jay noted that Georgia could not justify its objection simply because it was named as a defendant in federal court, since the Constitution allows suits between states, in which states will inevitably be defendants. The objection, therefore, was based on the fact that the plaintiffs were individual citizens of another state. “That rule is said to be a bad one,” wrote Jay, “which does not work both ways.” In other words, if Georgia had the right to sue citizens of different states in federal court, it would be unjust for those citizens to be unable to sue Georgia.

Jay then examined the language of the Constitution, which extended the judicial power “to controversies between a state and citizens of another state.” He argued that these words were “express, positive, free from ambiguity, and without room” for implied exceptions. To accept such an exception, Jay wrote, would “contradict and do violence to the principles of a free and equal national government, one of the great objects of which is, to ensure justice to all: To the few against the many, as well as the many against the few.”

James Wilson’s Significant Contribution

While other justices based their decisions on the text of the Constitution, James Wilson believed the case depended on the question, “Do the people of the United States form a Nation?” Thus, Wilson begins his analysis with these words:

The fundamental nature of the issue presented by the case was aptly characterized by Justice Wilson: This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State; certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is, whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others, more important still; and, may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one, no less radical than this— “do the people of the United States form a Nation?”[2]

The portion of his decision that is most important is his argument that sovereignty belonged to the people, who, by ratifying the Constitution, had committed themselves to the nation’s laws. States, like the individuals within them, must not be exempt from enforcing those laws.[3]

Justice Wilson began his analysis of Georgia’s claim of sovereign immunity by contesting the appropriateness of the very term “sovereignty” with regard to the new Constitution:

To the Constitution of the United States the term Sovereign, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves “Sovereign” people of the United States, But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.[4]

In Chisholm v. Georgia, Wilson observes that “the term sovereign has for its correlative, ‘subject,’” and in this context, it cannot be applied because it is not found in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution mentions “citizens,” but never “subjects.” In other words, Americans are citizens of the United States of America, but not subjects of its government. This is an important difference between the situation in the United States and Europe. Americans were never subjects at any time during their post-revolutionary history.

Justice Wilson rejected the idea of “subject” regarding the case because he understood the Government of Georgia to be republican, meaning it is based on the principle that sovereignty resides in the body of the people. Wilson also argued that Georgia’s citizens, when ratifying the Constitution, did not surrender their supreme or sovereign power to the state; instead, they kept it for themselves. Therefore, in terms of the Union’s purposes, Georgia should not be considered a “sovereign state” by the European definition.

In summary, Wilson states that if the word “sovereignty” is used at all, it refers to the people, not to any government formed by the people. I wonder if it might be a better course of action to consider the United States as consisting of three distinct sovereignties:

1. The Ultimate Sovereign (the people of the United States);
2. The Local Sovereign (the several states, sovereign in every area not specified in the Constitution); and
3. The National Sovereign (the government created by ratification of the Constitution, sovereign only within its Constitutionally prescribed areas of responsibility).

The analysis of Justice Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia best leads one to conclude that the sovereignties of the states and the national government are, under our system of government, derivative sovereignties. The states are Local Sovereigns with the powers that were designated for them in their constitutions, and the federal government is the National Sovereign with the powers that were given to it by the Constitution. The people, however, retain ultimate sovereignty over both.

Chief Justice Jay’s opinion supports the view that the United States is characterized by multiple sovereignties, as he uses the term “joint and equal sovereigns.” In his opinion. [5]  Jay affirmed the latter went on to affirm the “great and glorious principle, that the people are the sovereign of  this country, and consequently that fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing with each other in their own Courts to have their controversies determined.”[6]

This kind of language supports the view that, in the United States there is one ultimate sovereign (the people) and two subordinate sovereigns, each sovereign only within the limits granted by the constitutions that formed them.

Aftermath and Legacy

In his dissent, Justice Iredell asserted that every state was “completely sovereign” other than where its powers had been delegated to the federal government. On the nature of sovereignty, Justice Iredell had the following view:

Every State in the Union in every instance where its sovereignty has not been delegated to the United States, I consider to be as compleatly sovereign, as the United States are in respect to the powers surrendered. The United States are sovereign as to all the powers of Government actually surrendered: Each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered. [7]

According to Iredell, no suit by private citizens against a state could proceed without the state’s consent unless there was English common-law precedent to support such an action. Finding an English case allowing a claim against the Crown to proceed inapplicable to the present case, Iredell believed that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claim against Georgia. After a Constitutional Amendment, Iredell’s view prevailed.

Interestingly, although the justices did not agree on the merits of the case, they did agree that the Ultimate Sovereign in the United States is the people themselves, and each of the national and state governments are local and national sovereigns, with only such powers as the Ultimate Sovereignty of the people has given them. This is consistent with the language of the Constitution that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[8]

Conclusion

I wouldn’t spend an entire blog on just one Supreme Court case if I didn’t truly believe it was so important. It’s not only crucial for understanding the history of the Constitution and the 11^th Amendment, but also for shaping how we view our government today. Sadly, many Americans have come to see the national government as the ultimate authority. After the Civil War, the balance of power between state and federal governments shifted, with the federal government becoming the more powerful of the two. But, it’s important to remember that nothing in the Civil War amendments takes away the ultimate sovereignty of the people of the United States over their government.

As our national, state, and local governments develop increasingly detailed rules that influence almost every aspect of our daily lives, it’s important to remember that this can sometimes feel like overreach that infringes on the rights of the people. While the federal government has expanded its regulatory scope and built a large bureaucracy, it’s also vital to remember that the Constitution limits the areas the federal government can regulate. When definitions of federal powers broaden too much, they can unintentionally encroach upon the sovereignty that rightfully belongs to the people.

In an increasingly urban and socially and economically interdependent society, it is easy to forget the people’s ultimate sovereignty as governments struggle to solve social problems. Nevertheless, both state and federal governments need to remember that they serve the people, not rule over them.

Copyright 2026, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793).

[2] Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) at 453 (Wilson, J.)

[3] Randy Barnett,” The People or the State?: Chisholm v. Georgia and Popular Sovereignty” 93 Va. L. Rev. 1729-1758 (2007).

[4] Chisholm v. Georgia, 454. See also, Barnet above, at 1731.

[5] Id, 477 (Jay, C.J.).

[6] Id, 479

[7] Id, 435,

[8] U.S. Const. amend. X.

Lent is a time for focused prayer. Don’t get me wrong, prayer is always essential to Christian discipleship, growth, community, and life. But, Lent is intended to be a time of deepening prayer, especially that prayer which leads to a change of life.

On my bookshelf, I have several books on prayer, and I’ve read many of them. However, prayer is like playing an instrument or any sport. The real question isn’t, “How many books have you read?” but rather, “How much have you practiced?” Prayer isn’t mainly about knowledge; it’s about practice. The best way to learn to pray is simply to pray.

Throughout my ministry, I treasured the weekly practice of including a prayer list in our bulletin, which we prepared together as a staff to support and uplift our congregation. Every Tuesday at 9:30, a dedicated group of staff members gathered in prayer, creating a special sense of community. Years ago, during a denomination transition, we started holding heartfelt prayer vigils on the first Friday of each month, providing a prayer guide outside the chapel and hosting services at 7:00, 12:00 noon, and 6:00 in the evening. Although attendance varied, these prayer days were meaningful moments for us to pray for our church, community, and the world all day long. The Session also regularly set aside time to pray for our church’s needs during each meeting, often for an extended period, which we found deeply encouraging. Additionally, our Men’s Saturday reunion group spent the first Saturday of each month in prayer, meditation, and seeking to strengthen their connection with God, fostering a wonderful sense of fellowship and spiritual growth.

Paul’s Good Advice.

In this blog, I want to begin with a verse from Philippians. The Philippian church was a lively and supportive community, standing firmly with Paul during tough times. They were genuinely generous, giving freely to help the church in Jerusalem when it needed it most. Like any church, they weren’t perfect—after Paul’s departure, they faced challenges such as false teachers and other struggles. As we examine today’s passage, it’s clear that two members, Euodia and Syntyche, are in disagreement. Paul’s advice to rejoice, pray, and focus on what is true and good stems from his response to this situation.[1]

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends! I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life. Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you (Philippians 4:1-9).

The Problem: Our Human Condition.

Prayer begins with understanding the human condition. The conflicts between the two people in Philippi remind us that, at times, we are not in God’s will. We are naturally self-centered, self-interested, short-sighted, seeking temporary pleasures and trivial pursuits, prone to worry and anxiety, sometimes jealous of those who have more, and inclined to form factions. Not everyone has all of these tendencies, but we all have some. These issues exist because none of us, by nature, possesses the spiritual connection with God that helps us avoid them. The story of Genesis and the fall illustrates our human condition and its real-life consequences. Since the fall, humans have struggled to stay connected with God.

I’m confident you will believe me when I say that Kathy and I would never, ever quarrel. I’m sure that none of you who are married ever argue. However, I have noticed that couples do argue, and when human beings argue, we often stop communicating. When communication breaks down, our problems rarely improve. In fact, I’ve observed over the years that many quarrels originate from a failure of loving communication from the start!

Our relationship with God is similar. Our tendency is to push God to the edges of our lives, maybe only on Sunday morning or a few moments each day if we remember. The result is that we lack the ongoing relationship and communication with God needed to experience the joy and peace He wants for us. When we do reach out to God, it’s often because of an immediate problem. We communicate urgently, but without the depth of a well-developed relationship.

The Solution.

The first step in shifting our focus from ourselves and our desires to God and His desires for us is to rejoice and be thankful for the gift of life and what God has done. It’s interesting that immediately after Paul comments on the quarrel in the Philippian church, he says, “Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say, Rejoice!” (v. 4). A life of prayer starts with rejoicing in faith. Our rejoicing may not always be free from pain, fatigue, or anxiety. Still, we know there is a God who cares, so we pray to Him.

Second, Paul tells the Philippians to be gentle and not to worry, but to do everything with prayers and petitions, letting God know what we need. It is as if Paul is saying, “Once you have your attitude right about God and have begun to praise God and rejoice in your salvation by faith, then start talking. Let God know what you need and how much you need it. Just let God know what is on your heart—everything that is on your heart.” Once again, the point is not that we will never be anxious. The point is to constantly turn our anxiety over to God.

Third, Paul encourages us to be thoughtful and focus on things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable. By doing so, we open ourselves to be filled with the Spirit of God—the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. Thinking about these virtues keeps our hearts centered on the One who embodies them all—True, Good, and Beautiful. When we fill our minds with these good and lovely things, our prayers naturally become more focused on Godly desires.

Finally, Paul encourages the Philippians to reflect on what they have seen him do, how he has lived, the results the Gospel has brought in his life, and to put the Gospel into practice. It is only when we rejoice, pray, grow wise, and actively apply the grace we’ve received that God’s peace will fill our hearts. Just as study should lead to action, prayer should lead to action as well. We need to practice what we pray for.

When I was in active ministry, our congregation supported The Presbyterian Outreach Foundation, which funds missions in the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and other denominations. One member of the Outreach Foundation’s Board of Trustees, who lives in the Southeast, is a true prayer warrior. Occasionally, I would go into my office and find a prayer message on my phone. Sometimes he called and prayed. I also received emails with words of wisdom and prayers.

I have watched my friend for some time now. He is not a pastor; he is in business. He served on a financial-related committee of the Outreach Foundation. He is almost always cheerful and gentle. He is clearly prayerful. His prayers are powerful and very touching. His comments are almost always wise and thoughtful. In his personal and professional life, he practices what he believes and prays for. He does not just pray; he lives a prayerful life.

An Approach.

In the past, I have written about and preached the ACTS method of Adoration: Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication, as well as other prayer methods. Today, I want to discuss a way of prayer that can help each of us grow in our personal prayer life.  In writing this, I found a meditation in one of my prior sermons:

In prayer, three things happen: We come in touch with God and God’s will, we come in touch with how our will and God’s will can become one, and we come into unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ. When our will and God’s will become one, the power of God’s wisdom and love becomes unleashed in our personal lives. When God’s will and the will of a community of believers become one, the power of God’s wisdom and love is unleashed in the world.

The first step in building a prayer life is alignment. If we only ask for things, our prayer life will eventually burn out. None of us receives all of our prayers answered, and we all have times when we ask God for things we cannot or should not have. As we listen to God and align our prayers with His will, we gradually begin to pray within His will. When that happens, our prayer life becomes more powerful.

Second, one reason we gather and pray together on Sunday mornings—whether in worship, small groups, or classes—is that when our church, classes, and small groups pray collectively, our wills and prayers begin to align with God’s will. This is why Jesus wanted his church to be a “house of prayer.”

Think of alignment like a laser. Lasers are essentially light beams that have become ‘coherent”—meaning all the beams of light are traveling in the same direction. As we pray and listen to God, our wills and God’s will become aligned. We stop asking for things that are not in God’s will. When a group prays and listens to God, its prayers become aligned—meaning we all pray within God’s will. When that happens, God’s power is unleashed in our families and communities. This is one reason spouses should pray together.

Second, we should pray constantly. We all need quiet time. We all need to have special times of prayers at home and church. At the same time, we should try to develop the habit of constant prayer—a kind of prayer without ceasing. Paul says we should pray in everything, and that means about everything and all the time. When we are worried, tired, stressed, short, jealous, angry, etc. we need to pray. When life is not going our way, we need to pray.

Kathy and I have been exploring Orthodoxy lately. One of their spiritual disciplines, which I’ve been trying to include in my daily walk, is reciting the Jesus Prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.” The idea is to repeat that prayer so often that we pray it in our spirit even when we’re doing something else. I’m not quite there yet, but I can say it makes a big difference when I remember to dedicate my daily walk to prayer.[2]

Another habit Kathy and I have tried to develop is what I will call “Listening Prayer” or a “Prayer of Silence.” Twice a day, we sit for between ten or twenty minutes in silence, listening for God. In some groups, this is called a “Centering Prayer.”

If we want to align ourselves with God and His will, we need to develop the habit of listening. It’s hard for those of us who are active and used to being busy. It’s not easy for me either. But alignment and consistency in prayer are not natural; they are gifts that God gives to those who wait and long to be united with Him in important spiritual matters.

Conclusion.

Most of us know that on the night before he was crucified, Jesus went to pray in the garden. He prayed to be relieved of the duty God had placed upon him. He ended the prayer with “Not my will, but your will be done” (Matthew 26:39). In other words, Jesus’ human will had aligned with God’s will, and now he had the strength to endure what was about to happen. Not all of our prayers will be in easy times. Not all will have pleasant results. Our prayer, in the end, is for our human will to embrace God’s will so we may be filled with his power, whatever the circumstances.

Copyright 2026, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved 

[1] The scholarly sources for this blog include William Barclay, “The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians” in The Daily Bible Study Series Rev. Ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster 1975) and Richard R. Melick, Jr., Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon” in The New American Commentary vol. 32, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1991).

[2] The actual words of our short prayers can vary. We might say the classic version of the Jesus Prayer, or we might say, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.” We may say, “Lord Jesus, have mercy.” Ancient monks used another version, “Lord, make haste to help me. Lord, make speed to save me,” all day long. There is nothing sacred about the words themselves. Sometimes I use another Orthodox prayer, “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.” For Protestants,  a verse from the Bible or another prayer might do just as well. The point is to come closer to God.